Monday, June 25, 2012

Whether they are D or R, they mostly care about two things -- their getting elected in the upcoming election and their own self-esteem. This email deals with the former only.
Normally, when a politician faces a tight election, and if an individual or organization can significantly affect the outcome of that election, a "deal" can be worked, especially if the "deal" is good for the state &/or nation. The above is the secret of how 80-20 gets things done for the Asian Am. community during the presidential elections.

2. How to acquire the ability to "significantly affect" the outcome of an election so that a politician will do the right things for AsAms?
Most citizens don't have that ability! They don't have the time, knowledge, experience, and resources. Elected officials don't have the freedom to acquire that ability. Their loyalty to the Party and its presidential candidate is pre-ordained.
Some non-government orgs, NGOs, have that ability. Examples are AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Comm.), Unions and Super Committees. Is 80-20 another example? You decide, after reviewing 80-20's track records.

3. What is more important to politicians? Money or Votes?
Political candidates need money to buy ads, hire political consultants and staff, send direct mails to voters, etc. Why? To get VOTES! So the answer is clear, organizations that can delivers votes directly is a lot more powerful.

4. Why is a bloc vote so powerful in an election?
See footnote below to understand why a small interest group representing only 8% of the total vote can determine the outcome of a big election.

6. Five points AsAms must know about presidential election. o (1) Our president is elected by electoral votes not popular vote. o (2) Asian Am. vote in the nation is not 8% but at best 3%. o (3) To "significantly affect" the next presidential outcome, AsAms must show the ability to affect the outcome of the presidential election in a few "battleground states" such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Florida. o (4) AsAm votes in those states are ALSO less than 8%, although in such battleground states the D/R split in votes is often 49/49. Hence, our 2% or more vote can still play a pivotal role. o (5) 80-20 has played such a role before. Visit http://www.80-20initiative.net/news/preselect2008_apavote.asp#2006 .

"Democrat Webb won VA Senate race by 7231 votes giving Dems the Senate leadership. According to CNN poll figures, Virginians cast 2,364,217 votes for the senate races, with 3% (70926 votes) cast by Asian Americans. Of those, Webb got an advantage of (68-32) or 35 points which translates to (70926 x 0.35) or 29,824 votes. Without the AsAm bloc vote, Democrats would not have won a Senate majority."

7. Seize this moment!
Every presidential election is our golden opportunity to help ourselves become equal citizens and America become a "more perfect union."
Check around to find out which organization has the experience, resources, and track record to deliver for you. ACT! Throw in your support in money and time now. DO YOUR SHARE!

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of1) Dominic Ng, Pasadena, CA: $5,000 annually. He is the president of a prestigious organization, The Committee of 100, and 2) Xia Family: $1,000

Footnote: The power of a bloc vote
Two candidates run against each other in a political division, which for simplicity is assumed to have two constituent groups only. One group has 1 million votes (8%) and the other has 11 million votes (92%). Candidate A, a novice, courts the larger group, not being aware that the smaller constituent group has the internal political cohesion to deliver a bloc vote in the ratio of 8 to 2 while the larger group does not. When the ballots are open, candidate A wins the larger community by the ratio of 52/48. The margin of difference is 4%. Since the larger group has 11 million votes, 4% of 11 million votes provides a winning margin of 440,000 votes to candidate A. His opponent, candidate B, is a seasoned politician. She courts the smaller group and wins that community by a ratio of 80 to 20, our name sake. The difference between 80% and 20% is 60%. 60% of 1 million votes is 600,000 votes. As a result, candidate B wins the election by (600,000 – 440,000) or 160,000 votes. Astounding? Yes! A small voting bloc decides the election outcome!

"To supporters of affirmative action, the practice has two major benefits— one positive and one punitive. For one, they say that it's a necessary corrective to grave historical injustices. Two—and this they don't often say out loud—affirmative action punishes those who are perceived to have benefited from (or even personally perpetrated) the politics of racial supremacy."

"But in both cases—even if one accepts those justifications—discriminating against Asians is indefensible. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that Asian Americans have endured more discrimination than American Hispanics, who benefit from affirmative action as it is currently executed. And Asian Americans can hardly be accused of oppressing other racial groups en masse. As S. B. Woo, former lieutenant governor of Delaware and current director of the Asian-American advocacy organization the 80-20 Initiative, says, "there is no historical rationale that justifies forcing Asian Americans to bear the burden of preference, more than other Americans." Indeed, given the historical injustices suffered by Americans of Asian descent—Japanese internment, the Chinese Exclusion Act—in an honest affirmative action regime, they would stand to benefit. . . ."

"Argument II", "The Pretests Employed To Limit Asian Am. School Enrollment Are Indistinguishable From Those Utilized to Impose Quotas Against Jews Throughout Much of the Past Century" is a must read. It starts at page 20. Read it. You'll appreciate why so many reporters in higher ed. publications think that YOUR BRIEF may just make a difference in this Supreme Court case.

Please forward it to Asian Ams who are still unconscionably supporting "race-conscious" admission.

Dr. Lee C. Cheng, president of AALF based in SF, filed the other Asian Am brief supporting Fisher. Here is a memorable statement that educated me.

"Ultimately, as members of a group who will almost certainly never be able to easily blend into this society, the sole protection that we and our descendants will have is rigidly enforced racial neutrality under the law."

* 80-20 once again thanks our great lawyer Alan Gura & our friend Ken Marcus, Pres. of Brandeis Center for Human Rights, which co-filed the legal brief with 80-20. We also thank the 3 Indian Am nat'l orgs which co-filed as partners, without administrative responsibilities.

Monday, June 11, 2012

80-20 is waging 2 fights on YOUR behalf -- in the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion.
Last week, you learned from here that mainstream & ethnic media focused keen attention on 80-20's amicus brief to the Supreme Court -- opposing "race-conscious" college admission policy. I entitled that e-newsletter "America Listening . . . "
Since then more media attention* came, and they got even more positive! For YOU to sense how that battle is going, please read: Affirmative Action Starts to Unravel By John S. Rosenberg, June 7, 2012
This article's 4th, 5th and 6th paragraphs state:
"Fifteen amicus briefs here support Abigail Fisher's claim that Texas's racial preference policy is unconstitutional, and the two of them that have generated the most attention in the past few days were filed on behalf of Asian-American groups likening their treatment under affirmative action to the early 20th Century Jewish quotas in the Ivy League."
"Both of those briefs cite Daniel Golden, who argued . . . that 'Asian-Americans are the new Jews, inheriting the mantle of the most disenfranchised group in college admissions.' As Peter Schmidt (of Chronicle of Higher Education) pointed out the briefs filed by Asian-American organizations opposing affirmative action represent "a marked departure from the position most other Asian-American groups have taken on the issue.""Jews Standing with Goliath Against David?
Indeed, reflecting both the "new Jew" identity and the break from the traditional Asian-American position, . . . 80-20 organization . . . has written . . . that "We are in an uphill battle like David v. Goliath, only with a twist: Imagine some Jews block David's path, arguing that Goliath may well be their best friend. Furthermore, they contend they represent all Jews. Can David still win?"
This article's last sentence states: "The Asian briefs criticizing affirmative action . . . may well indicate that the days of the "diversity" defense of discrimination are numbered." http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2012/06/affirmative_action_starts_to_unravel.html ARE YOU PROUD? When have you seen mainstream media citing Asian Ams' impact in a major national issue? Names of "Asian Am" organizations supporting "race-conscious" college admissiono The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) (Margaret Fung info@aaldef.org ) o Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) (Stewart Kwoh, skwoh@apalc.org ) o Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA) OCA@ocanatl.org o Asian Am. Institute (AAI) http://www.aaichicago.org/en/contact-us o Asian American Justice Center (AAJC) http://www.advancingequality.org/contact-us o Asian Law Caucus (ALC) alc@asianlawcaucus.org
Everyone knows that affirmative action (AA) was for helping minorities who were wronged historically. Asian Ams were on the receiving end of the historic wrongs. So why do Asian Am student have to score 140 SAT pts ABOVE whites in order to have an equal chance to enter elite colleges, under the current admission polcy? Many whites think it is wrong. Yet, the above AsAm orgs. support that particular part of AA that not only works grossly against AsAms but is also completely contradictory to the original intent of the affirmative action!Tell each of these orgs that you'll HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
Post your comments on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp.

Monday, June 4, 2012

80-20 Filed A Supreme Court Brief on May 29th. http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/pdf/amicus-brief.pdf. It attracted a huge amount of media attention, mainstream and ethnic! See footnote at the end.
Strangely, America listening is not enough, because ours is a house divided among itself. The following article from Chronicle of Higher Ed, the most prominent publication in higher education, will make my statements crystal clear. I quote the first and last paragraphs of that article. Asian Americans and Affirmative Action
June 1, 2012, 11:29 am By Richard Kahlenberg http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/asian-americans-and-affirmative-action/32649?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
"The amicus briefs for those challenging affirmative-action policies at the University of Texas were due to the Supreme Court earlier this week, and among the most talked about are those filed by Asian-American groups. Traditionally, most Asian-American organizations have supported affirmative action, but as Peter Schmidt notes in the Chronicle, the decision of (80-20, Brandeis Center and) three major Indian-American organizations to oppose affirmative-action policies this week "reflects a marked departure from the position most other Asian-American groups have taken on the issue.". . . . . . . . .
. . . "As long as Asian American groups presented a mostly solid phalanx of support for affirmative action, these issues could be downplayed. But with the emergence of a split, the thorny issues posed by Asian Americans may be hard for the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore."
The last paragraph above makes it clear that the future filing of legal brief supporting "race-conscious" college admission by any Asian Am orgslessens the chance of the Supreme Court ruling in our favor. It also implies that such "AsAm" organizations approve the current discrimination against our children. Please Persuade These "Asian Am" Orgs To Stop
Are you amazed or dumbfounded or perhaps angry? Here are their names.
o The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)
(Margaret Fung, info@aaldef.org )
o Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC)
(Stewart Kwoh, skwoh@apalc.org )
o OCA and many other Washington, DC based Asian Am orgs have also filed in the past in favor of "race-conscious" admission.
o Asian American Institute (AAI),
o Asian American Justice Center (AAJC),
o Asian Law Caucus (ALC)
These orgs have provided good service for our community in the past. Hence, just tell them that the past is forgotten, IF they do NOT make the same mistake again. Dishonest Defense of Themselves
The above Asian Am organizations make it seem that they will be filing a amicus brief to support Affirmative Action (AA). Actually, they HAVE AND WILL support a particular part of the AA that has been shown to discriminate Asian Ams. grossly -- the "race-conscious" college admission policy.
This "race-conscious" plan is actually AGAINST the original purpose of AA -- to make up for the historic wrongs committed against minorities.
Please confront and ask these "AsAm" orgs why they are supporting an admission plan that "to receive equal chance to enter elite colleges, Asian Ams need to score 140 SAT points above whites, when Asian Ams have historically been on the receiving end of discrimination.
Are these AsAm orgs. FOR or AGAINST our rightful interests? YOU must reason with & exert pressure on those organizations. Ask them to stop or you'll hold accountable. You'll stop supporting them, and indeed ask all your friends to stop supporting them. PASS the word.
Post your comments on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp.